During the oil pricing negotiation, one of my teammates is more persuasive than me at the beginning. He made the analysis for us and soon became the leader of our group. I am not used to taking the lead when my teammates have a stronger character than I do. Moreover, I know that the decision-making process is based on the consensus among the members. It would be better that we have a harmony immediately after the first discussion. Hence, I was glad that he wanted to be the opinion leader and I did not fight for it. Although I had a different opinion at first during the discussion, we soon formed our negotiation strategy based on what our leader assumed. To avoid the risk, we keep a rather conservative initial price. On the second thought, to maintain the harmony within the group might lead to a wrong decision. The decision making could be misled by a too homogeneous group or a leader with a very strong bias. This kind of decision making might jeopardize the negotiation. Next time, the group will need more out-of-box thinking and I think I need to learn not to be afraid to have a different point view.
At the first round, we did not understand what the other group is doing, and we did not search far because nobody actually slow down and ask ourselves what the Batia’s intention is. Personally, I did not give this victory a second thought because we were gaining points. The whole group was overwhelmed by the first victory so we did not look further for their motive to keep the price at 30. I think this is the reason why we missed the first chance to adjust our evaluation about the Batia team.
The thing which shocked me the most is actually the optimism and trust shown by my teammates. During the whole negotiation, although the team is showing the good will, I cannot stop being suspicious. After the first meeting, my teammate who attended the fair said that Batia was waiting for us to rise to 30, which would create a win-win negotiation. I agreed that it’s the best way to precede the negotiation, but I was afraid that the mutual trust is too frail and that they would break the agreement at any time. Since two countries are rival and don’t have means to communicate with each other, in my opinion, the hostility should prevent both countries to create a constructive relation. In Taiwan, the prevailing attitude towards the People’s Republic of China is the same. PRC and Taiwan have been in a hostile rivalry since 1950. When we were little, we were taught that the enemy would try everything to undermine our country’s interests. Hence, everything that PRC does has a purpose, which is to take over Taiwan. This kind of thinking is very bad for a good relation to develop because we tend to misinterpret their speeches and actions. This attitude also reflects to my personal attitude. I did not trust Batia could be so kind because we are supposed to be under antagonistic circumstances. This would perhaps prevent me from reading the signals from Batia. I might have distorted their good will because I have learned in my culture that the enemy should not be trusted. Luckily, one of my teammates insisted in keeping the promise and believing Batia would keep its promise. I realized at the end that I am more pessimistic than my two teammates. However, for future reference, I think I need to overcome this attitude to achieve a better negotiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment